R
Rau
Guest
You seem to wandering off topic to events not comparable. You know you do wrong, but freely choose that course and pre-plan a confession. That is not the pilot’s situation. He did not use the future potential for confession to give him an excuse to fly the plane. He did so trusting his superiors, or out of ignorance or misjudgment, or in the mistaken belief that the ends justify the means. Or perhaps he just wilted under the pressure of the situation. He later truly realized his error and his contrition is genuine and he would truly intend not to repeat his error. You cannot say that. In fact if your sterilization were incomplete for some reason, you would fully intend to repeat it. (Artificial scenario I know, but I think the point is clear.)Imagine you are an American pilot. You were one of the pilots who dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Meaning, you intentionally struck a civilian target knowing full well you were killing massive amounts of innocent people. You did it to end the war and avert many many more casualties that would come from an outright invasion of Japan. You are convinced that it had to be done, yet you are greatly grieved at your actions, consider you intentionally destroyed innocent life. This would be contrition, no?
Is intentionally killing innocent people intrinsically evil? If it is, then this is a situation where one committed an intrinsically evil act to avert an even greater evil, yet nonetheless recognizing the intrinsic evil of his act he is contrite. You see the parallel?
It varies. At times we really are striving for holiness, at other times we give in and push that still small voice out and indulge ourselves. Its a bit of a back and forth. Sadly, whether striving for holiness or not, we always seem to give in and “do it”. I’m about ready to just get married and put the fornication behind us once and for all.
What if innocent lives being lost is actually intended, within the context of a just war and to avert greater evil? Was either the firebombing of Dresden or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki an intrinsically evil act, done to avert a greater evil? Could one then be contrite for having committed an intrinsically evil act even though a greater evil was averted thereby? May one be contrite over the means employed, though not in regard to the greater evil having been averted?
And further, it is not the case that intentional mass murder of innocents can be justified in war, regardless of how many other innocents such an action is expected to save. Such a “consequentialism” based ethical system is explicitly rejected by the Church. Intrinsic evils may not be committed regardless of beneficial consequences anticipated.